I’ve been doing some thinking and meditation on the role of Mary as the Mother of the Church, and I have found it to make perfect sense. I here write my thoughts, partly to make it clear to myself, partly to ask someone more knowledgable whether the Church’s teachings on Mary go further than this, or (perhaps) say something else entirely. As tread-title implies, I am not as of yet married to Rome, though I may have fallen in love
First, is it even appropriate to call someone Mother of the Church? It would seem not, since a mother is someone who gives birth to the child, and believers are reborn not by Mary, but by the Holy Spirit. It would seem that this equates Mary with the Holy Spirit.
However, Abraham is called Father of those that believe, not because he has begotten them, but because he is an example and a rolemodel of faith in God. Likewise, Mary is called the Mother of the Church, not because she has concieved it, but because she is an example and rolemodel of grace. She most perfectly opened her heart to Jesus and thus is called “full of grace”. As someone once said, Mary concieved Christ in her heart before she concieved him in her womb. Therefore it is appropriate that Mary should be the Mother of the Church.
But do we need a Mother? Do we need someone to be a rolemodel other than Christ? Is Mary something that Christ isn’t?
Yes we do, and yes she is. Christ can be - and should be - our prime example in everything but in recieving Christ and recieving grace. Christ cannot show us how to perfectly recieve him, because he is himself the giver. For that we need someone else. Someone who is not active (giving/masculine) but passive (recieving/feminine). And who is here more fitting, than the New Eve, who recieved Christ even in the flesh?
Thoughts, corrections, comments, elaborations?